Quantum mechanic

Link of the day: Alex Gansa walkthrough of Homeland's first season

2012-01-30T08:20:00.000-05:00

I was delighted to find that AV Club posted an extensive interview with Homeland's co-creator and co-showrunner Alex Gansa. In it, Gansa goes through all twelve episodes of the standout first season. This is part of AV Club's "Walkthrough" series. The site has conducted similar interviews with other showrunners. The Homeland walkthrough was an incredibly interesting read and I came away being even more impressed with the writers. I'll list a few of the particularly interesting remarks.

Gansa didn't think there was anything positive about doing network TV (as opposed to cable). What about reaching larger audiences??
Mandy Patinkin was specifically asked to grow a beard. A commenter on the article said that he grew a beard and his wife told him he was much harder to read. "With the beard, you have to read most of his emotions through his eyes and in my opinion it works so well..."
Gansa regretted killing off characters (e.g. Lynne Reed, Faisel, Tom Walker) too quickly before they had a chance to develop them.
Gansa said that the riveting scene where Saul puts together the colored timeline was actually shot after the episode had already been wrapped. They realized they needed that extra scene after the fact. Gansa remarks that it's a testament to Mandy Patinkin's skill as an actor that he made the sequence so interesting, the way he tears the paper, etc. I've noticed that about outstanding actors. They can make anything seem interesting, make any line of dialogue seem interesting.
The writers planned far in advance. They had decided that Dana would be the one to pull her dad back from terrorist activities. And that's why they carefully developed Dana's character and slowly gave Morgan Saylor (the actress who played Dana) more and more to do until she could play the pivotal phone scene in the finale.
An interesting remark about TV writing:
One of the things you learn very early in writing for television, especially, is that compressing the story is always a good idea... And what we realized we had to do was, whenever we could, swing for the fences and not save story, but put the cards down.

That was the part of the season where people were like, “Oh my God, what’s going to happen next? What are the writers going to do next? I’m worried. Can they sustain the show? Are they telling the story too fast? How are they going to keep this going?” And, interestingly enough, that’s what people are saying at the end of the first season, too: “Well, where can they go from here? How can they move on from here?” One of the things that I learned from Howard on 24 in terms of plotting out these thrillers is that if you sit in a room long enough with smart people, there is a way the story can be told compellingly.
More observations about TV writing. The scene discussed here is Carrie and Saul's interrogation of the Saudi diplomat.
Here’s another example of a scene that everybody’s seen a thousand times, and the question was, “What spin do you put on it? How do you make it different? How do you make it interesting?” The way we chose to make this interesting was, the very thing Saul and Carrie think that they have over this guy [the fact he's gay], and that’s going to be the trump card, doesn’t work. That’s what turned the scene on its head all of a sudden...

If you have more than one thing going on, a scene is always better, so what’s going on in this scene is that Saul has turned over the interrogation to Carrie and trusted her to do it... So the dynamics between Carrie and Saul are just as important as the dynamics between Carrie and the diplomat, and that’s what adds the richness and the complexity to the scene, and makes it feel different and unexpected.

And always, whenever you’re writing a scene, whenever you can do something that comes purely from character but that is unexpected, that’s the gold. That’s when you’ve mined something that’s really worthwhile.

Frankly, I'm amazed by the amount of insider information we get nowadays about TV shows. I really enjoy this open dialogue between creator and audience. Apparently, there is a significant appetite for this kind of thing; otherwise, season walkthroughs, TV critic websites, and people like Alan Sepinwall wouldn't exist. Gansa must really respect AV Club to spend so much time granting this exclusive interview.

Slow TV vs binge TV

2012-01-29T08:41:00.000-05:00

What's the best way to watch TV? Getting the DVDs and marathoning dozens of episodes at a time? Watching as the show airs, one episode a week?

I've seen arguments for both. Mary Choi of Wired argues "In praise of binge TV consumption." Over at AV Club, Todd Van der Werff argues "In defense of slow TV."

I find that thriller, plot driven shows are better watched via DVD marathoning. If I had watched Alias as it aired, I would have been incredibly annoyed about the constant cliffhangers in the first season. Densely layered, character driven shows are better watched slowly. I have no discipline, so it's a lot easier for me to watch as the show airs. I'm not the kind of person who given a stack of DVDs, can limit myself to watching one episode per day.

When I blitz through a show on DVD, I miss a lot of details and it feels like a blur. That's no big deal if it's a mediocre show, but not so great if it was a good show that I actually wanted to delve into. (The problem with mediocre shows is that finishing them becomes a tedious chore.) Binging is frequently unsatisfying, in the same way I feel about gorging on a huge bag of popcorn. Not to mention the unhealthy aspects of watching TV all hours of the day, neglecting hygiene, and forgetting to eat.

The higher quality the show, the more I want to watch slowly. I still have fond memories of watching Battlestar Galactica as it aired (with the exception of Season 1 which I had to catch up with on DVD). I would run down to the basement TV room to catch episodes on Sunday nights. I remember being inspired by the episode "Flight of the Phoenix" -- at how people could find moments of heightened joy in the darkest situations.

Currently, I've been watching Homeland as it airs. I would usually make a first pass on each episode. This would satisfy my need to find out what happened next and I would register the highest emotions on the first pass. (This makes me think of how shocked I was to watch Carrie's manic episode in "The Vest" on my first viewing.) I would read the responses from TV critics, read audience comments, and peruse conversations on forums. People would mention details I'd missed. Then I'd go back watch the episode a second time. The second pass would be my detail sweep. Then I'd wait for the next episode and repeat the process. I wouldn't normally go to all this effort, only for a special show. It's a lot of work, but if it's a great show, I learn a lot. In this way, TV watching becomes a rich experience and not just a trivial diversion.

Link of the day: Coaching like a creative writing instructor

2012-01-28T07:20:00.000-05:00

While in the bookstore sitting out a fire alarm, I picked an issue of Sports Illustrated. I came across the annual Sportsman of the Year issue. This year, the award was bestowed on college basketball coaches Mike Krzyzewski and Pat Summitt. I was especially intrigued by descriptions of Krzyzewski's style of coaching. Writer Alexander Wolff claims that he thinks of coaching his players as writing a story.

For someone who doesn't read, Krzyzewski coaches an awful lot like a creative writing instructor. Two weeks ago, before Duke played Kansas in the final of the Maui Invitational, Krzyzewski gave his inexperienced team a kind of grammar to moot the burden of conscientiousness he feared they'd feel. The shots presenting themselves that night, he told them, wouldn't be their shots. "I told them they were my shots, and that I wanted them to take them," he says. "That they should shoot whenever they felt a shot, and I'd live with the result. Young players, if they thought of shots in a big game as theirs, they might hold back."

Krzyzewski tries to teach his players to see themselves honestly, to see themselves the way he sees them. That truthfulness helps them grow.

"I could recite a definition or quote some famous author on ownership, and they would never feel it," Krzyzewski says. "You tell stories, and you have a chance to feel the word."

Krzyzewski teaches his Blue Devils by arraying things around them that they can see. "If one of my guys can see himself honestly, that's the rite of passage to the place where he and I can have a trustful relationship," he says. "In a moment on the bench, he can see himself through my eyes. I'd say I've had that relationship with most of my players. Sometimes they never give you themselves. But sometimes they give you themselves that first day, and it just gets bigger."

The Sports Illustrated piece recounts a particularly poignant story about US Olympian Kevin Durant.

In August 2010 in Madrid, Krzyzewski gathered the U.S. national team before an exhibition game with Spain. As he addressed his players he noticed forward Kevin Durant staring at the floor. Afterward he took Durant aside to tell him the importance of eye contact.

"Coach," Durant replied, "I'm a shy person."

"Kevin, you can't be a shy person. I need you to be great. We need to be great together."

That night the U.S. beat Spain in the final seconds, and the next morning the team reconvened to view film. When he rolls tape, Krzyzewski often stops the action to make nontactical points—to flag a facial expression or a phrase of body language. And here was Durant in freeze-framed glory, looking like a basketball god come down in vengeance.

"Kevin! That's what I'm talking about!"

Krzyzewski wheeled on point guard Russell Westbrook. "Russell, when Kevin looks like that, how does it make you feel?"

"When Kevin looks like that, it makes me feel like we're gonna win," Westbrook replied.

"Kevin, if you look like that, before you make one shot or grab one rebound or stop one guy on defense, you've created a mood of winning."

Durant went on to dominate the worlds, averaging 33 points over the final three games. In his coach's judgment, no American has ever played better in an international competition. "Kevin had been lumped in with his peers and didn't know how to separate himself," Krzyzewski says. "Sometimes you have to show guys."

Link of the day: Why soccer seems boring

2012-01-27T07:37:00.000-05:00

I've always wondered why soccer seems dull. The ball bounces back and forth all over the field and not much seems to happen. I love playing and watching hockey, which is similar to soccer. I played soccer as a child. Yet, I've never gotten into watching soccer, the only exception being the sensational 2011 women's World Cup final between Japan and USA.

Finally, I found this great essay on Grantland which answers exactly my questions.

First, why is soccer so dull?

There are two reasons, basically, why soccer lends itself to spectatorial boredom. One is that the game is mercilessly hard to play at a high level. (You know, what with the whole "maneuver a small ball via precisely coordinated spontaneous group movement with 10 other people on a huge field while 11 guys try to knock it away from you, and oh, by the way, you can't use your arms and hands" element.) The other is that the gameplay almost never stops — it's a near-continuous flow for 45-plus minutes at a stretch, with only very occasional resets. Combine those two factors and you have a game that's uniquely adapted for long periods of play where [the ball bounces around chaotically and nothing seems to happen]...

Second, if soccer is dull, why is it the world's most popular sport? Why the crazed fans?

Following soccer is like being in love with someone who's (a) gorgeous, (b) fascinating, (c) possibly quite evil, and (d) only occasionally aware of your existence. There's a continuous low-grade suffering that becomes a sort of addiction in its own right. You spend all your time hoping they'll notice you, and they never do, and that unfulfilled hope feels like your only connection to them. And then one day they look your way, and it's just, pow... I watch soccer to be amazed.

Oh, and check the footnotes of Brian Phillips's fantastic piece to hear his meditations on how American sports (football, baseball, etc.) have rules which promote regularity and prevent the kind of chaos observed in soccer.

Thought of the day: Why the head needs the heart and vice versa

2012-01-26T15:17:00.000-05:00

It's a cliche in film and TV: the cerebral character who doesn't seem to believe in emotions. Or less common, the wild reckless character who never stops to think. I think in situations that seem to demand an overwhelmingly intellectual response, feelings act as a good filter to weed out information. Conversely, when there are a million emotions running through your head, it's a good idea to reach for your brain and trust what it tells you. Not that any of this is new, but I thought I'd share my way of saying it.

Song of the day: "The National Pastime" by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman

2012-01-24T17:49:00.000-05:00

I just watched the pilot episode of NBC's new TV show Smash. My favorite song is "The National Pastime", which alludes to the Marilyn-Joe DiMaggio relationship. It's a sly, double-entendre, throwback number -- which I love. You should watch it live with the beautiful choreography. It reminds me -- where have you gone Broadway dance? The last great dance routines I saw were on a revival of West Side Story.

MARILYN: (spoken) Fellas!
CHORUS: (spoken) Yeah?
MARILYN: (spoken) Fellas!
CHORUS: (spoken) Is it?
MARILYN: (spoken) Hey, team!
CHORUS: (spoken) Off the benches, it's Marilyn!

MARILYN:
I just got a date
CHORUS:
She's just got a date
MARILYN:
With baseball's Joltin' Joe
CHORUS:
That lucky so-and-so
MARILYN:
So run me 'round the bases,
Put me through my paces,
And teach me all the things a slugger's lover
Should know!

MARILYN:
What's that there?
CHORUS:
That's the pitcher's mound
MARILYN:
Have you ever seen a shape
That is so perfectly round
CHORUS:
Batter up
MARILYN:
Play ball
CHORUS:
You better give it your all
'Cause all men like to play at
MARILYN:
The national pastime.

MARILYN:
Who's that man?
CHORUS:
That's the first base coach
MARILYN:
Have you noticed that he signals
Every time I approach?
CHORUS:
Kill the ump
MARILYN:
Throw him out
CHORUS:
Because there isn't a doubt
That all men like to play at
MARILYN:
The national pastime.

MARILYN:
When I was just a little girl
I liked being dainty and purty
But now that I'm giving sports a whirl
I feel I kinda like to get dirty
CHORUS:
Yeah!

CHORUS:
Baby, what's that there?
MARILYN:
That's the team's bullpen
And I like the odds I'm seeing
No girls, all men
CHORUS:
Hit the deck, look alive,
Beware the lady's line drive
MARILYN:
Yes, my skill and my passion'll
Elevate the national --

(interlude)

MARILYN:
Peanuts!
Hot dogs!
Cracker jack!
I don't care, I don't care,
If I ever get back!

(interlude)

CHORUS:
When the season's over
The play won't end
MARILYN:
'Cause a baseball diamond is a girl's best friend...
CHORUS:
Yes, her style and her fashion'll
Elevate the national pastime!

Improving the public image of science

2012-01-21T22:00:00.000-05:00

I think sometimes about how to improve the public image of science. There are a million things going on in people's lives, things that worry them; children have so many ways of occupying their time, whether it's sports, Facebook, or video games.

I want people to believe that science literacy is important the way that reading is. You wouldn't tell someone you can't read. Yet people have no problem saying that they're "not good at math."

I want to see people doing amateur science whether it's on the computer, looking at stars, or performing experiments. I see all these people buying $500+ dSLR cameras. Thanks to the advances in digital photography and the huge drop in the price of equipment, anyone is capable of taking pro level photos if they work at their skills [1].

Some ideas I have

Take better photos of scientists. I've never really seen many good portraits of scientists [2]. On that note, why can't we make a documentary or a music video that will convince people that scientists are heroes?
Get the public more involved in science. Make them feel like they can make a contribution. We need more initiatives like Galaxy Zoo.
Find ways to get children more interested in science. Maybe high school kids could be allowed to write software for the library. Have kids do Make Magazine projects.
Show people how they can use science and math to great benefit in their lives. I have to admit, I don't really know how to do this. I've always liked how you can use statistics to expose cheating in polls and things of that nature.

[1] Not that I'm saying amateurs are actually pros. The professionals can take a much higher percentage of good photos than an amateur can.
[2] This one from the New York Times is not bad for an environmental portrait.

Notes on transitions/pivots in hockey

2012-01-20T03:59:00.001-05:00

Forward to backward

Glide forward on both skates.
Shift your weight to the front of your skates.
Turn your upper body and hips approximately 90 degrees.
Shift your weight to the back of your skates.
(advanced) Do a backwards crossover.
Skate backwards.

Can be done on a curve or on a straight line.

Keep your body low and your feet wide. Keep your head up! That will ensure that your body is square.

The key is the part where you turn your upper body and hips. This does most of the work. Don't try to turn your feet. Turn your upper body and hips first, and your feet will follow. As your turn your body, keep your body square -- your shoulders should be level, your body weight centered over your skates. You shouldn't be leaning backwards or forwards or dropping one shoulder.

Concentrate on shifting/transfering your momentum from forward to backward without losing speed. The pivot is similar to the pivot in the hockey stop, but you don't want to do the stopping part! Ideally, you want to accelerate out of the transition.

Backward to forward

Glide backwards on the back inside edge of one skate, on an arc. Keep gliding until your body faces 90 degrees to your original direction of travel.
Open up your hips and hold the other skate in front of you and off the ice.
Now turn your upper body and hips towards the skate that is off the ice. Your body should be an open, V-shaped position.
Shift your weight to the other skate. Put that skate down on its back inside edge.
Skate forward.

Can be done on a curve or on a straight line.

Keep your body low and your feet wide. When you are gliding on the back inside edge, keep your feet close together so you can really put your weight on the back inside edge.

Remember to keep your head up!

Imagine that your feet are skating on an arc. When you do the backward to forward transition, your skates need to be on a deep inside edge.

Don't change feet too early. Keep gliding (for what seems like a long time) until your body faces 90 degrees to the original direction of travel. Then rotate your upper body and hips, not before.

Applications

In game situations, transitions are used so that you always face the puck and never turn your back on the play.

Forwards might use transitions when going down low on the breakout. This way they don't turn their back on the puck when making themselves available for the defenseman to pass to.

Defensemen probably use transitions the most.

They might be skating forward with the puck. They can't see a good play to make, so they buy some time by transitioning to backwards.
Your team is attacking and you skate forward into the offensive zone to help out. But then your team loses possession of the puck and you need to switch back to defense. So then you do a transition and skate backwards to cover the defensive zone.
You are skating backwards playing defense against a forward. Then you use the backward to forward transition to cut off the attack and push the forward towards the boards.

Drills

Do transitions around a pair of cones.
Do transitions around your own stick.
Do transitions on a slalom style course.
Have the defenseman skate forward towards an attacker, then transition from forward to backward and play defense against the attacker.
Have the defenseman skate backwards while an attacker skates forwards. When the attacker gets close, the defenseman cuts off the attacker using the backward to forward transition and pushes the attacker towards the boards

References

Robby Glantz Secrets of Hockey Speed, Vol 1 - "Change of direction", 0:00
Laura Stamm - "Quick turns and transitions", 1:26

Television in the 21st century

2012-01-19T23:25:00.000-05:00

I'm amazed by how artistic television has become in the last decade. Critics say that this trend started with HBO's The Sopranos in 1999. This kind of television, with its heavy serialization, deep characterization, and overarching themes, has found its niche on cable TV, especially on HBO, Showtime, AMC, and FX. (There aren't as many network shows of this kind; the outstanding examples are Lost and 24.)

New York Times film critic A. O. Scott argued that TV is just as good as film now and there is really no reason why films should be higher in the pecking order. (Unfortunately, film's prestige still lingers. Compare the coverage of the Oscars to the Emmys.) Some even think that TV is better than film now! Patrick Meaney wrote a very long piece citing the advantages of the TV format over the two-hour film. He pointed out that the length of the TV series allows more creative freedom and time to explore characters. On a TV series, with good material, an actor can showcase his/her diversity and range. More and more big name film actors are jumping into TV. Here's a sampling: Martin Sheen (West Wing), Alec Baldwin (30 Rock), Sally Field (Brothers and Sisters), Glenn Close (Damages), Claire Danes (Homeland). Recently, Dustin Hoffman signed on for HBO's Luck. He told the press that

You cannot get a shot at doing your best work in the studio system. There's committees, there's meetings, they're on the set ... they get involved in a quasi -- at least I think it is -- creative way. They buck heads with people they shouldn't be bucking heads with. And with HBO, once they give a go, there is no committee, there's no meetings, these guys are allowed to try to do their best work and they then give it to us.

Famous film directors are getting into TV, too. Martin Scorsese directed the pilot for Boardwalk Empire and Michael Mann is directing and producing Luck.

The biggest changes have come for writers and their audiences. If anyone is happy about the state of television, it's got to be the writers. Can you name any film script writers? In television, the showrunner (head writer) is truly the boss of everything and (provided that the network doesn't interfere) can realize his/her creative vision. The public has heard of David Chase (The Sopranos), David Simon (The Wire, Treme), Ron Moore (Battlestar Galactica), and the nerd favorite Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse). Many playwrights are writing for television, to gain experience (and to put bread on the table, so they can go back to the theatre).

The audience has become a greater, more vocal participant in television. Fans gather on forums to extol the virtues of actors, or trash showrunners for clumsy plotting. By its nature, Serial drama invites discussion and analysis. TV criticism websites have proliferated, for instance, Television Without Pity, AV Club, and HitFix. (Again, TV criticism is still lower status than film criticism, but hopefully that will change.) There are wikis to keep track of complicated plot threads and numerous characters. Writers monitor forums and occasionally go onto boards to personally talk with fans. On learning the audience's reaction, they can adjust the series before the fans revolt. (Some crazy fans have actually become a nuisance for showrunners and networks -- demanding changes as if they own the show.)

Personally, I enjoy watching a great TV series unfold. Every week, I watch an episode, read the critic reviews, and participate in forums. It's a heavy investment of time, but well worth it, for the enrichening experience. I learn so much about the human condition (e.g. endurance in Battlestar Galactica), archane topics (e.g. horse racing in Luck), acting (Claire Danes in Homeland), and writing.

The massive serialization and strong audience participation remind me of the Victorian novel. Back then, authors like Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy wrote in installments. It's hard to remember this, since we read these works as complete (and very thick) novels in our literature classes. Writing in installments meant that the lower classes could afford fiction and that writers had to keep their readers interested. In Dickens's Great Expectations, there's a line of dialogue where one character brings up another character out of the blue in the dialogue. My high school English teacher explained that the reason was so the reader wouldn't forget the named character later. Supposedly, Thomas Hardy inspired the term "cliffhanger"! Nowadays, the cliffhanger is a standard trope in modern television. Large ensemble casts and intricately woven plot threads in TV series like Battlestar Galactica remind me of my favorite novel, George Eliot's Middlemarch (which was also serialized). The serial television drama really is the 21st century's version of the Victorian novel.

TV isn't the end of the story. New players are emerging in this media game. Felicia Day stars in and produces The Guild, a web series about gamers fully funded by donations. Netflix just committed $100+ million dollars to two seasons of a Kevin Spacey drama without even seeing a pilot. YouTube is trying to become more than just a streaming video site and commissioning several original series.

The only danger now is that we'll have so much good material to watch that the audience will splinter into niches. I actually know a substantial number of people who've watched Battlestar Galactica or The Wire. That's because there were only a few shows of that caliber at the time. It's a little like how everyone watched Walter Cronkite because there weren't any alternatives. In the future, there may be so many good TV shows that everyone will watch their own thing or be desperately trying to catch up on the huge list of "classics." (Exactly the situation we have with books.) The last decade of television has proven that there is no shortage of talented writers, actors, and crew. I look forward to see where we go next.

Link of the day: "Advice on Getting Better from an Accomplished Piano Player"

2012-01-17T18:22:00.000-05:00

I follow Cal Newport's blog, whose theme is something along the lines of how to live your life, so that you are creative and get a lot of (real) work done while staying sane.

I liked one of his recent posts where he discussed a piano player's strategy to becoming better. The strategies of "Avoid Flow. Do What Does Not Come Easy; To Master a Skill, Master Something Harder; Systematically Eliminate Weakness" -- they all fit the general strategy of deliberate practice, which I've discussed in the past here and here.

The last strategy "Create Beauty, Don’t Avoid Ugliness" fits into the general strategy of visualization. In sports, coaches talk a lot about visualizing your success or visualizing your strategies to deal with a particular situation. For example, if you are a forward playing ice hockey, you could visualizing the three different moves you'd use to score a goal on a breakaway. But visualization can be extended to so many other situations beyond athletic and musical performance. When you get up in the morning, you can script your day and visualize how you want things to go.

Thought of the day: Presentations are a form of writing

2012-01-12T00:21:00.001-05:00

I've come to realize that presentations are just another form of writing. The critical thinking skills you use in writing words on a page are the same ones you use when you "write" your presentation slides. You need to map out what you're going to say, come up with a logical flow, provide supporting evidence/data for your points, etc. The main difference is that presentations are written to be performed. In that sense, they are similar to plays, movies, and television. A presentation can be a very personal work because you are both the sole writer and sole performer. Since I've started watching television with a critical eye, I want to write a post explaining how you can use ideas from TV writing to improve your presentations. If you are a good writer, you are probably a good presenter and vice versa.

Claire Danes on long distance relationships

2012-01-09T23:29:00.000-05:00

Now that Homeland is over for the season, I have nothing better to do than search for "Homeland Showtime" and "Claire Danes" in Google News. Well, it wasn't a complete waste of time. I came across a transcript of an interview with Claire Danes on the Piers Morgan talk show (CNN).

I found this part interesting, where Claire discusses how tricky it is to maintain a relationship long-distance.

MORGAN: And you've been married what, two years now?
DANES: Yes, two years.
MORGAN: Spent any of that time together or was it basically --
DANES: We've been really fortunate, actually, in the formative stages of our courtship, of our relationship, we -- our schedules were kind of amazingly compatible. Lately, we've not been so lucky. I've been, obviously, filming a series, and he's doing a play in New York right now. So he's stationed there.
But we talk a lot. We text a lot. We send each other photos of our toes. I mean, I don't know.
MORGAN: Your toes?
DANES: I don't know. Dumb stuff. We try to make it --
(CROSS TALK)
DANES: I think it's dangerous when you go into a reporting mode, when you just kind of list the things you've done that day. Sometimes you just have to act as if you're with each other and not say anything terribly significant.

I've done that a lot, where I go into "reporting mode." Maybe I can try what Claire suggests and talk to someone over the phone as if they were there with me.

New Zealand leads the way in energy conservation

2012-01-05T00:27:00.000-05:00

I was recently vacationing on the South Island of New Zealand. The attention to conserving energy there was impressive. Here are a few things I noticed:

Signs reminding people to turn off the lights
Skylights in bathrooms allowing use of natural light during the day
Two buttons on toilets for light and heavy flushes
Cloth towels instead of paper towels in bathrooms
Switches on all power outlets
Possum fur used in clothing (possums are a pest they are trying to eradicate in NZ)

Quick notes on the hockey slap shot

2011-12-11T13:18:00.001-05:00

I got most of the following information from Total Female Hockey.

The further back you place the puck, the lower the shot. Put the puck near your front foot for a high shot. Put the puck near your back foot for a low hot.

Place the puck as close to your body as you can without impeding arm movement. Don't make the mistake of putting the puck too far away from your body.

Use proper grip. Slap shot grip is different than stickhandling grip. Turn your wrists away from you, such that the blade closes a little. The bottom hand should rotate so that your elbow goes from slightly bent to being locked straight. Similarly, the top hand should rotate so that your elbow is locked straight.

Get low and stay low through the shot and follow through.

You must turn the blade over and closed during the follow-through to have power and accuracy in your shot.

I've heard recommendations that you should hit the ice 6-10" behind the puck, rather than the common refrain of 1-2". Supposedly the pros use the 6-10" distance whereas beginners start with 1-2". The reason for using a longer distance is that it gives the stick more time to flex and makes your shot more powerful.

There are lots more slapshot tips at Wild About Hockey. When I start to really practice my slapshot, I'll write up something more complete.

Hockey wrist shot

2011-12-09T11:46:00.001-05:00

My wrist shot has always sucked. Like everything else in hockey, you need incredible technique to do it well. I thought I'd write down the important ideas behind the wrist shot, to remind myself.

Main ideas

The wrist shot consists of two major motions:

Sweeping the puck forward while transferring your body weight.
Pushing and pulling the stick hard and fast and snapping your wrists towards the end of the push-pull.

You need to be able to do all the different motions well, on their own. Then you need to put everything together and time everything properly. Timing is crucial. I suggest breaking down the wrist shot into small motions and making sure you can do each separate motion before you try the entire wrist shot.

Going on to more specifics...

Stick grip

You want to grip the stick properly to make your wrist shot as easy and efficient as possible. The top hand should be in either one of two grips.

Hold the end so that knob is inside the palm of the hand with the thumb wrapped around the stick and next two fingers gripping the end and with the pinky closed into the palm and resting on top of the butt end. With this grip, the two fingers after my thumb are behind the butt end and the fourth finger is resting on the side of the butt end.
If you have a weak forearm/grip, hold the end with the thumb wrapped around the stick and the next three fingers

For more details and photos, see the middle of this webpage by Madknuk Enterprises. No one ever told me this -- I've been holding my stick wrong for years.

As for the bottom hand, place it on the stick so that you arms are about shoulder width apart.

Weight transfer

You start with your weight on your back foot, slide the front foot forward, and twist your torso. This provides a lot of the power behind your shot.

You want to time your motions so that you smoothly transition from transferring your weight forward to twisting your torso. Think of your body as a spring.

To exaggerate the weight transfer, you can step forward with your foot, actually lifting your foot off the ice.

I usually don't have too much trouble with the weight transfer action, because it's a natural instinct from playing other sports.

Cupping the puck and sweeping motion

The proper starting position is to cup the puck with your blade closed near your back foot. Then sweep the puck forward, keeping the puck on the heel of your blade. The sweeping motion should be straight and smooth. As you sweep the puck forward, put down with your bottom hand to put some pressure on the blade so it flexes, but not too much. You just want to use enough force to flex the stick, while the majority of your weight transfer focuses on moving the puck forward.

Make sure the puck isn't too far away from your body. I find it easier to shoot wrist shots with a short stick because the puck starts closer to my body. However, you don't want the puck so close that torso gets in the way of your elbows.

I have a lot of trouble with my wrist shots because I always open the blade of my stick too early. The blade starts closed, then when the puck gets near your front foot, you quickly open up the blade, and snap your wrists to close the blade. If you do this right, the puck should stay at the heel of your blade throughout the entire sweeping motion. You don't open up the blade until near the very end.

All the work of putting your weight behind the puck and sweeping the puck through does no good if the puck falls off your blade. This happens to a lot of beginners. They can't lift the puck, their shot is weak, and the reason is that the puck is falling off the blade because either 1) they're opening up the blade too soon and/or 2) the puck isn't staying on the heel of the blade during the sweep.

Kevin Muller mentions the importance of keeping the puck on your heel in this instructional video.

You can do the following exercise on or off the ice. Without the puck, practice transferring your body weight and sweeping the puck. Work on this motion until it becomes natural. A good way to remind yourself about weight transfer is to start with all your weight balanced on your back foot and your front foot in the air, then step forward with your front foot. Obviously you wouldn't do this in a game, but it reinforces the idea behind the weight transfer.

Push-pull motion

When the puck gets near your front foot, open up the blade and then push-pull the stick. You push with your bottom hand and pull with your top hand. You want to do this as fast and hard as possible. Again, do this as fast and hard as possible. The proper technique is wonderfully explained in this Total Female Hockey video.

The speed of the push-pull determines the timing of when you start the motion, i.e. where the puck is in relation to your feet when you start the push-pull. Also, you should be twisting your torso while you do the push-pull.

As Coach Kim explains in the above Total Female Hockey video, you can practice the push-pull motion off the ice without a puck.

Wrist snap and follow-through

As you push-pull the stick, when the puck gets to the end of your blade, you want to snap your wrists really fast and hard so that the blade opens, then flips over and closes. Point the stick blade towards the target and follow-through. The stick should point straight out in front of your body if you follow-through properly.

If you get the push-pull, open-close motion of the blade, wrist snap, and follow-through sequence right, the puck should spin off your blade and not wobble in the flight.

When you are on the ice with pucks, you can practice the push-pull and snap motion separately from the weight transfer/sweeping motion. Put the puck near the front foot and just do the push-pull and snap without any weight transfer or snapping motion. Kevin Muller explains this exercise in the same video from previous section. If you do this exercise, you'll realize how much velocity you get from just the push-pull and wrist snap alone.

Checklist

Make sure you are holding the stick properly. Hands shoulder width apart with the top hand holding the stick with the pinky off the end. Start with the puck close to your body.
Weight transfer from back foot to front foot. Slide the front foot forward
Sweep the puck forward in a smooth straight line, while pushing down with the bottom hand to flex the stick.
Make sure the blade stays closed during the sweep.
As the puck gets near your front foot, twist the torso and push-pull the stick really hard and fast.
As the puck leaves the end of the blade, snap your wrists hard and follow-through.
Concentrate on power, spin, accuracy, and quick release.

Final notes

If you practice off-ice, make sure you wear your gloves while you're shooting. You need to get used to how the stick feels with your gloves on.

Practice shooting facing perpendicular to the target and also facing the target. The position where you face the goalie is called the triple threat position because you can either pass, shoot, or make a move. When you get good at stationary wrist shots, start practicing wrist shots while skating forward.

If you master the wrist shot, try learning the hybrid wrist shot/snap shot. This is what the pros use because it has a quicker release. NHL player Mike Cammileri demonstrates the more modern version of the wrist shot in this video. To see a more in-depth instruction video, check out HowToHockey's explanation of the traditional and modern wrist shot. The modern wrist shot focuses on quick release and relies mainly on the forearms and flex of the stick for power. There is very little weight transfer and the puck starts pretty close to the front foot, compared to the traditional wrist shot.

Many thanks to Wild About Hockey and its great article on improving wrist shots. I incorporated some of the tips from that article into my post here.

Link of the day: Khan Academy goes beyond just video

2011-12-08T21:10:00.001-05:00

As Khan Academy (see my earlier post) gains fame and recognition, the backlash of criticism is starting. Some commenters on the recent New York Times feature "Online Learning, Personalized" think Khan Academy is overrated and nothing special.

In this article on Inside Higher Education, Salman Khan explains that in fact,

“I think too much conversation about Khan Academy is about cute little videos," Khan said in an interview last week. “Most of our resources, almost two-thirds of [the staff], are engineers working on the exercises and analytics platform. That, I think, is what we’re most excited about.”

It's true that people visit Khan Academy for its online video tutorials of math and science subjects, but behind the scenes, Khan's team is collecting statistics on 1.4 million registered users. They are using that data to understand how well the user is learning, for example, to predict whether the user will be able to solve a similar problem weeks later. One of Khan's engineers notes that "the work he does for Khan Academy is similar to the statistical modeling he did in finance."

They are also experimenting with incorporating memory research into their software. Websites like SuperMemo have touted the power of reviewing material at specific time intervals to deepen your memory of the knowledge.

What impressed me most is that Khan's team is working to differentiate between "pattern matching" and true understanding. Pattern matching is a problem solving method in which the person recognizes a class of problem and then uses a standard method to solve it. As Eric Mazur remarked in his talk on teaching introductory physics, his student would look at an exam question, think "oh, this is a Kirchoff's law problem" and then use the textbook method to solve it. Pattern matching is a useful method, but rather low-level, "a sort of useful imitation that allows toddlers to learn how to use language without first learning how grammar works." Unfortunately, in the real world, we can't easily identify problems in convenient categories like "Kirchoff's law." Even in the confined reality of physics class, Mazur found that his students would become frustrated when they came across a problem they couldn't classify. They would blindly apply atextbookrecipe and complain when it didn't work. Moreover, innovation and creativity requires global, comprehensive mastery of concepts, what I would loosely call "trueunderstanding." One of Khan's engineers states

“A big part of real-life problem-solving,” Kohlmeier says, “is recognizing what kind of problem you’re dealing with.”

Salman Khan proposes a radical idea: develop an independent agency to administer an exam that will test college students' competencies and mastery of concepts. The problem is that we have a mass of college graduates with degrees and GPAs, but there is no easy way to differentiate between them -- to know if they have developed the skills that employers want. That's why a lot of employers simply hire Ivy League graduates, because the colleges have already done the hard work of filtering already.

Khan is not impressed with the liberal arts education, an opinion that will no doubt spark controversy.

“If you can go deep in many things, awesome,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “That’s wonderful. But the reality is, right now, you’re forcing students to [obtain], and employers to hire students with, kind of a broad and very shallow experience base -- an expensive broad experience base. And it’s not clear that’s doing anyone any good.”

“Higher order” skills in critical thinking and creativity are useful only to the extent that graduates wind up in a position to apply them, Khan said. In the malaise of post-college unemployment, a graduate’s aptitude for analyzing themes in literature or conducting reliable research will languish. “If you don’t have that starting point of [graduates] being engaged and productive in society in some way, then the rest is just a waste of time,” said Khan.

Distribution requirements, the four-year model, and the buffet approach to curriculum all contribute to the “arbitrariness” that muddies the signaling function of college degrees and “have no relation to what makes you a more productive citizen or better for society or a more creative person,” Khan said.

“If you decouple [learning and credentialing], the arbitrariness is gone,” he added, and “it federates the options to adjust to what people’s needs are.”

I don't think we should completely get rid of the liberal arts education, but I agree that it's definitely not for everyone and that perhaps we should move to the German model where some students go to university and others attend vocational schools.

Thought of the day: Character is universal, plot is not

2011-12-05T16:35:00.000-05:00

I realized today why the great actors do character driven stories. It's because

Character is universal, plot is not.

All creative people strive to create something lasting that says something universal about the human condition or nature. In the end, no one cares about tedious plot details. Enough with the constant exposition and twists. It's not that interesting. Mysteries are so arbitrary; the audience is at the mercy of the writer. That's why I get sick of TV shows like Lost, 24, and (the later seasons of) Alias.

OK, you need some plot, but just enough to make the story and characters work.

Why I love Homeland

2011-12-04T13:49:00.001-05:00

I've been watching Homeland, a new TV show on the cable channel Showtime. I love it -- it's challenging, surprising, expertly written, and beautifully acted. I like all kinds of stories, but my favorite by far is the heavy-hitting, intense, raw, gritty drama. I haven't been this excited about a show since Battlestar Galactica.

Homeland is an espionage drama and a psychological thriller. The main character and protagonist is CIA officer Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes), an incredibly intelligent, driven, compulsive woman who is kind of crazy. She's been diagnosed with a "mood disorder." She's devoted her life to fighting terrorism and she becomes obsessed with the idea that an American POW, Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis), is a terrorist. Her closest ally is her mentor Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin), who cares deeply about her and is constantly covering for her. When Brody is rescued from the Middle East, she's the only one who thinks he's been turned and she tries to (illegally) gather evidence to prove it.

I've never seen a show where the main characters are so unpredictable. Damn, it's exciting. Brody and Carrie are both complete wildcards. Brody is going crazy following eight years of captivity and trying to adjust to civilian life. Is he really a terrorist? Carrie is obsessed and isolated (by choice). She's a maverick spy who enjoys flirting with danger. As a viewer, my jaw is hanging open half the time and I'm thinking "what the... ?"

I've enjoyed every single character, even the minor ones. The show has the patience to spend time letting us get to know the characters as opposed to plot, plot, plot (the kind of writing I hate). Come on TV writers, character is universal, plot is not. I'm glad Homeland appreciate this. I savor the dialogue. The CIA people talk in a smart and crisp mannerbenefitingtheir education and occupation; Brody's family sound less polished as expected (they are middle class), but authentic. I like the scenes without dialogue even better. Brody cowering in a corner, Carrie watching him on video surveillance with headphones on, Carrie driving to work alone, Saul staying late at the office and digging through the refrigerator. All of it is fascinating in the context of this show. We really need less talking on TV.

The title Homeland is an interesting one. On the surface, it sounds like a reference to the Department of Homeland Security, even though technically the CIA is part of the State Department. Another way to interpret is that all the main characters are terribly isolated and lonely, unable to connect with other human beings -- they are never "at home" with themselves. There are so many scenes where people are alone, particularly Brody and Carrie.

The first seven episodes were just dynamite and absolutely riveting. Episodes 8 and 9 were good, but not stellar. Well, I guess the writers can't keep hitting home runs. Warning: spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen the show, don't read the rest of this post. Really, don't read further. You're losing out on all the fun.

SPOILERS BELOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

There are so many great moments that it would take forever to list them all.

The CIA tech Virgil confronts Carrie with evidence of her mental condition.
Carrie (lamely) trying to seduce Saul to avoid ending her career with the CIA.
Carrie melting down in the closet.
Carrie starting to mirror Brody: she wakes up when he wakes up from a nightmare, she brushes her teeth while lying on the coach watching Brody lie on the coach watching TV
Brody casually leaving the house and walking in a mall after punching out a reporter.
Brody opening the garage door a crack and conducting Muslim prayer.
Saul unleashing his rage on Carrie because she lied to him about the illegalsurveillanceand then tried to seduce him after he found out.
Virgil cracking witty remarks about the surveillance footage.
Carrie flirting with her boss, David. Yeah, she's not manic and depressed all the time!
Carrie gleefully predicting what order Brody puts his uniform on.
Carrie, Virgil, and Virgil's brother taking down the surveillance while the Brody family is at church singing a hymn. Carrie looks awed at finally being able to step into the house and then of course, she starts frantically looking through all of Brody's belongings.
Carrie and Brody meeting for the first time.
Carrie chewing out Saul and calling him a pussy, then Saul throwing her out of his house.
Carrie brashly telling Saul that they're going to catch Brody lying on the polygraph and that she'll bet "everything" she's got -- even her jazz CD signed by Thelonius himself.
Carrie tearfully escaping to her sister's house and getting into bed with her nieces.
Carrie and Brody having wild parking lot sex.
Carrie antagonizing white supremacists in a bar.
Carrie and Brody having emotionally raw, romantic sex.
Confrontation between Carrie and Brody at the cabin.

When I watched the pilot, I was blown away by the character Carrie Mathison and Claire Danes's performance. Wearing an engagement ring to scare off guys interested in relationships? Check. Giving herself a whore bath? Check. Trying to seduce her mentor? Check. Melting down in the closet? Check. After I saw the pilot, I felt like I had to know more about this character. How does she manage to live like this and why?

I'm riveted by Carrie and Danes's portrayal of her. Carrie Mathison is the finest female TV character I've seen. So complicated, compelling, and yet likable. If you know of a better character, I want to see it. I feel deeply connected to this character. She's so smart and yet so damaged. I have so many conflicting emotions about her. I love how brash and daring Carrie is. But it's not the kind of brashness where someone shows off. She just knows that she's really smart. It's the kind of charismatic confidence that flirts on the edge of arrogance. Women are socially pressured to be compliant; Carrie's unapologetic attitude is refreshing. She loves her job because of the job itself and not because a family member tragically died in 9/11. (I hate it when writers soften up a strong female character by coming upwithsomething like "oh, she became a police officer because her mom was murdered." As if it's threatening for a strong female to simply love her job.) I feel really bad for her, for mental condition, that she has to hide it from her colleagues at work. But I also recognize that being manic (bipolar?) is just part of who she is. It's not like there is a definitive point where the mental illness begins and Carrie the person ends. I wonder why she insists on isolating herself. She stays away from her family, people who clearly love her and worry about her illness. Why is she so terrified of a loving relationship? I'm kind of mad at Saul for constantly covering for her. He keeps letting her get away with behavior that is bad for her and bad for her career. I crack up when Carrie throws her fits. Sometimes she really acts like a kid, especially in Saul's presence.

I think I know why I feel this deep personal connection. I have a close family member who has similar manic fits. I've been that smart, brash girl. I've had problems, and I isolated myself for it. I think I'm growing up and losing my taste for ingénue characters like Buffy Summers and Sydney Bristow. Carrie Mathison is an adult and a real woman who is mature in some areas and growing in other areas. I don't see many complex portrayals of younger women on film and television. (The keyword here is "younger", not a green kid but not a jaded middle-aged woman.) That's exciting to watch.

Homeland has been renewed for a second season, so I'm sure I'll get to see some of my questions addressed. I'll keep watching, if nothing else, to see what Carrie is up to and to watch Claire Danes perform. I'm hoping the writers can keep up their outstanding work. Because Homeland is a show that inspires me. It has this ineffable quality about it that makes me feel better for having watched it. I'm entertained, challenged, moved, and educated. But even if the rest of the series disappoints me, I'll still have my memory of those first seven amazing episodes.

Thought of the day: Taking a break from yourself

2011-11-29T11:45:00.001-05:00

I was thinking that too much of our anxiety comes from living with ourselves 24/7 -- constantly being connected to our worries and feelings. Maybe what we need is to take a break from ourselves. Is that why people meditate?

Claire Danes the intelligent and self-aware actress

2011-11-26T17:07:00.000-05:00

I find this happens to me over and over again. I crush on some Hollywood star and rush around the web reading all about them. Tina Fey [1], Jennifer Garner [2], and now Claire Danes [3]. All incredibly poised, thoughtful, intelligent actresses. In any industry, there are some exceptional people. Part of me is the ridiculous fan who wants to know the gossip about their lives, but the other part is the person who wants to know what they've learned about life and what they think of their art.

How many actresses use words like "avuncular" and "apoplectic"? Claire Danes! Okay, maybe the intellectual elitist in me is overly excited but that is pretty unique. It's not just the big words; her overall intelligence is striking in interviews. Critics, interviewers, and film industry colleagues have frequently marveled at her "maturity." I'm not sure that's the best word for it. She seems to be deep, thoughtful, intense, serious, and intellectual ("I want to read the great books and talk about ideas"). This kind of personality is uncommon among adults; Danes was already like this as a child. When she was nine, she thought about becoming a psychologist or therapist (in case she didn't make it as an actor). I think she's one of those rare people with a very high emotional IQ, sensitive and empathetic yet grounded by her intellect. She picks things up way faster than the average person. Check out this interview at the age of 18. She herself remarks that she's "always felt ancient."

Claire Danes seems pretty damn cool. And now I need to go out and find some friends who are just as awesome -- real people I can hang out with.

[1] Tina Fey is a media darling and willing to be brutally honest and insightful in interviews, so there is lots of good material. I like the part about having "a great house."

[2] I always thought it was amazing how Jennifer Garner would ask J.J. Abrams about his directing choices in the DVD commentary. A real student of the theater. I wrote a gushing review of her work on Alias.
[3] I didn't really know much about Claire Danes. My only exposure to her was when my high school English teacher showed Romeo and Juliet in class. Only recently did I take notice of her, in the Showtime cable TV series Homeland (which rocks).

Favorite TV shows as of 2011

2011-11-25T16:25:00.001-05:00

I thought I'd quickly jot down my favorite TV shows by genre.

Drama
Battlestar Galactica, Homeland, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Comedy
30 Rock (seasons 1-2), Scrubs (seasons 1-4)

Genre
Alias (action/espionage/drama, season 1), Chuck (action/espionage/comedy, seasons 1-2), Firefly (western/comedy/drama)

Procedural
Bones (seasons 1-2)

Note: I realize my categories are a little subjective. You could call Battlestar Galactica a military science fiction show, Homeland a spy show, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer a fantasy vampire show. So they could also be called genre shows. But these three shows use the genre merely as a context to drive intelligent storytelling and provoke strong emotions in the characters. So I still call them dramas.

Quote of the day: Arnold Schwarzenegger on achieving goals unapologetically

2011-11-23T20:00:00.000-05:00

During the last week, I got hooked on the TV show Homeland, a psychological thriller starring Claire Danes, Damian Lewis, and Mandy Patinkin. The acting on the show is outstanding and in particular, I feel a strong personal reaction to Danes's work. Poking around on the New York Times website [1], I found a profile on Ms. Danes and I liked the following quote:

My line about Arnold is that he doesn't get in his own way. He is not apologetic about achieving his goals. And when you have that attitude, it's amazing what one can accomplish. He wanted to give me relationship advice. I was having trouble with a female friend, and he said, be really forthright and do not accommodate her needs excessively. I took his advice [pause] and we're not friends anymore. So there you go.

[1] I've learned that you can only find interesting material on celebrities if you go to serious journalistic websites like the New York Times. Talk show appearances by celebrities are the worst. It's a bunch of air-headed, flirtatious talk.

Unexpected conversations in the medical library

2011-11-19T16:05:00.000-05:00

I had heard about a new exhibit in the medical library. It's based upon the collection of a famous American neurosurgeon who lived around the turn of the 20th century. I visited at the spur of the moment, since I had just finished a workshop in the same building. There were hundreds of jars containing brains and brain tumors, even a technical document by the architectural firm that designed the exhibit. When I was about to leave the exhibit, a woman approached me and asked me if she could answer questions about the exhibit. She had been giving a tour while I was looking around.

Looking back, it was a serendipitous conversation. I didn't expect to run into an artist who was working on the exhibit and who taught photography at the art school I had attended (she doesn't teach there anymore). She was an exceptional conversationalist. She was receptive, open-minded, and kept the focus of the conversation on me for the first ten minutes. Can you think of anyone who does that? I can't.

I asked her why put so much effort into this exhibit. She said that a lot of medical collections like this have been thrown away. So it's important to preserve this particular collection.

I also asked her a lot of questions about photography. She told me that if you are a good wet lab printer, you'll be a good digital printer. The terminology is the same. She showed me some prints she made for the exhibit and I couldn't tell the difference from the silver nitrate prints (the gold standard for film). The quality is that good.

She made some interesting remarks about art education. I told her about how frustrated I felt when learning how to draw. I always felt like my work wasn't very good. She said that her friends in art education find that even children are expressing the same "I'm-not-good-enough" attitude by fifth grade. She also mentioned that today's children are constantly presented with processed 2D images on a screen, to the point that they don't know how to think spatially before. Drawing is the process of observing a 3D scene, interpreting it, and rendering it on a 2D surface. This makes me think that more kids should learn drawing.

We spent a long time talking and I'm grateful that she took the time to enlighten me.

Ramit Sethi, empathy, the value of mistakes, and the perfect mentor

2011-11-18T18:28:00.001-05:00

In the last five years, I've noticed the rise of what I call "internet personalities." Just like Oprah on TV, there are people who give advice on the best ways to manage your life. Their advice is aimed at the highly educated, tech savvy audience. A few examples of internet personalities: Tim Ferriss of the Four Hour Work Week, Leo Babauta of Zen Habits, etc. They build up a big audience on the internet, write a book and market the hell out of it to get it on the New York Times Bestseller list, and then repeat.

Recently, I've been reading Ramit Sethi's blog, which has the outrageous title, "I Will Teach You To Be Rich." Ramit's goal is to teach young (relatively well-educated) people how to manage their lives. The world is changing so fast, we are bombarded with information, and we are overwhelmed by choices. Our parents can't help us because frankly, they don't know anything. Ramit's particular angle is to use his educational background in behavioral psychology to reach young people.

You can find lots of life management advice scattered across the internet, but that is a time-consuming way to learn. Ramit packages his advice in a way that is accessible and shows empathy for young people. I find that our so-called elders can be pretty arrogant and dismissive of young people's concerns. They don't understand what we go through. Ramit does. He expresses sympathyand then yells at his audience (something along the lines of "wake up, what you're doing is stupid, stop doing that and do this.") This strange combination of empathy, admonishment, and enthusiasm is somehow endearing and persuasive.

Ramit started his blog in personal finance, but now he has turned to the greater challenge of leading people to their "dream job." I've talked to various middle-aged people about the career search and they are uniformly dismissive of the anxiety us young people have about the job search. Some of these people are really nice but it's clear that in the back of their minds, they think that the anxiety is really cowardice. I suppose that's easy to think when they were able to get their first couple jobs without any significant roadbumps. Ramit actually takes the time to talk about the psychological barriers we face when embarking on a job search: "I'm not qualified", "I don't like networking", "I don't want to rule out jobs because I'm closing doors," etc. Our "old-fogey" elders would find this kind of stuff is stupid, but Ramit takes the time to explain why these barriers don't make sense.

For example, one thing I always wondered about is why do people (even students from Ivy League schools) have so much trouble finding jobs. Ramit explains that they are wasting time on ineffective techniques like polishing their resume or shotgunning their resume on monster.com. They should really be networking to find jobs they are excited about. It seems paradoxical that eliminating choiceis the right way, but it works because when you focus on just a few jobs and companies, you can research the hell out of these places and tailor your approach to the specific job title/company, rather than submitting a generic resume that is sure to be rejected.

Ramit recently talked about "the top seven mistakes for finding a dream job." I like how he focused on mistakes as opposed to telling you what to do. I frequently find that it's more valuable to find out what not to do rather than what to do. It's much easier for me to remember people's mistakes and avoid them (my mind is screaming "no, no, no"). If someone tells me to do something that I don't want to do, I just feel annoyed (my mind is going "nag, nag, nag").

Ramit is a guy who is really putting his psychology skills to work and I admire him for that. Personally, I think mentoring and giving advice is very hard [1]. The perfect, ideal mentor would give you the exact advice you needed at exactly the right time and avoid burdening you with irrelevant or anxiety-provoking thoughts. That is hard. An example of what is not good mentoring: your mother shrieking in your ear about how you'll be robbed by gypsies if you travel to Europe. Maybe those guys and gals in artificial intelligence should program the perfect mentor.

[1] This reminds me of a post I wrote about the book A River Runs Through It.

Link of the day: Khan's Academy

2011-11-17T23:17:00.000-05:00

Lately, I've tired of TED talks. They were bold and exciting when they first appeared online (3-5 years ago?), but now people just seem to be selling their ideas whether they are merely good or truly brilliant. It's important to have inspirational meetings, but I think they should also be authentic and realistic.

There is one recent TED talk that I do like very much. Salman Khan, a former hedge fund analyst, spoke about how video can re-invent education. Originally, Khan recorded videos to help tutor his cousins in math. He posted the videos on YouTube and left them publicly available, in case someone else might find them useful. His cousins told him that they preferred their "virtual" cousin on video than the real thing! They found the video less intimidating because they could stop and repeat it without appearing stupid; they could learn at their own pace. Other people discovered Khan's videos and gave him so much positive feedback that he quit his finance job and started producing videos all the time. (Khan does all the math and science videos, and he hired experts to do the videos on humanities subjects. The scope of this project is astounding: 2000+ videos.)

That alone would have been an outstanding accomplishment, but Khan didn't stop there. He tried to track learning outcomes. He associated each video with a particular concept and made tree diagrams showing which concepts were prerequisites for other concepts. Khan calls this a "knowledge map." Students can work on modules. When they get enough problems from the module correct, they can move onto another module. When they master the prequisite modules, they can move on to a more advanced module, and so on.

This systematic tracking of the student's progress is invaluable to a teacher in charge of 30 students. The teacher can see how the class is doing. Moreover, if a student is struggling with a particular module, the teacher can find another student who mastered it and have that student teach the other one. Peer learning! (I discussed this topic in an earlier post about a Harvard professor struggling to teach first-year physics.) Now, at least one school district (in Los Altos, California) is trying out Khan's system in the classroom.

When the system was used in the classroom, it showed that different people find different concepts easy and different concepts hard. In Khan's words:

Because every time we've done this, in every classroom we've done, over and over again, if you go five days into it, there's a group of kids who've raced ahead and there's a group of kids who are a little bit slower. And in a traditional model, if you did a snapshot assessment, you say, "These are the gifted kids, these are the slow kids. Maybe they should be tracked differently. Maybe we should put them in different classes." But when you let every student work at their own pace -- and we see it over and over and over again -- you see students who took a little bit extra time on one concept or the other, but once they get through that concept, they just race ahead. And so the same kids that you thought were slow six weeks ago, you now would think are gifted. And we're seeing it over and over and over again. And it makes you really wonder how much all of the labels maybe a lot of us have benefitted from were really just due to a coincidence of time.

I found this very interesting. I'm guessing that a lot of teachers and coaches know that student learning is much more complicated than "gifted" and not gifted. It's nice that Khan can actually provide hard evidence establishing this fact.

Khan's work is amazing and inspiring. I do have a few questions. Using technology to tailor education is not a new idea. Why did Khan succeed? Is it because students are more comfortable with technology compared to students of the past? Why is video better than a textbook? A textbook is also non-intimidating and self-paced. Maybe it's because Khan is a great tutor who is both a talented teacher and entertainer? (I briefly viewed one of his videos and he seemed funny and charismatic.) In an ideal world, each student would have a one-on-one tutor. This isn't realistic. However, if we have a great tutor like Khan and he makes free videos available to anyone on almost every possible math and science topic from kindergarten to high school, this tutoring database is a pretty good, though imperfect solution. It's reminiscent of an idea in artificial intelligence. You can have a computer that isn't smart in the human sense, but if you program it with an astronomical amount of information, it can be very useful.

I think that doing online homework is becoming more popular as teachers realize that there is simply not enough time in the classroom to do everything. There are a lot of things students can do on their own with a "computerized" tutor. By "outsourcing" this teaching and doing it outside the classroom, the human teacher has more time to teach things that are hard for computers. Like having students discuss problems together. Or showing how many seemingly disparate concepts unify into a larger concept. Or doing hands-on science experiments. I know that for first-year physics courses, some universities assign online homework several times a week. This forces students to read the book and work on problems at home so that the lecturer can spend time explaining concepts rather than writing 20 equations on the blackboard.

What Salman Khan is doing is incredible work and I wish him the very best.